New Thoughts (04/29/13-05/05/13)
By and large, I shall reserve my observations about Thomas to their own sidebar at the end of this study. I do, however, find myself wondering at this nickname given him. Why would one apply the nickname of ‘twin’ to one whose name already identified him as a twin? Both names, you see, have the same significance. Thomas from the Aramaic and Didymus from the Greek, but both implying the same point. Was it needful to give him this Greek appellation? Amusing, perhaps?
Well, these are men from Galilee, by and large, used to a mixed culture of Jew and Gentile. We might even suppose a mixed heritage for Thomas, although no specific cause is given for such speculation. Maybe it was no more than a nickname given for no particular cause other than the fact that he happened to be a twin. This was known. It is, for whatever reason, in our nature to assign our own names to people. It may be a shortening of their given name. It may refer to some shared experience, a shared joke, in the past. It might refer to some physical feature. I have borne many such names in the course of life. It’s easy to suppose that this Didymus meant little more than any of those I have had. But, then, I would not expect any of those nicknames to have been set in writing, certainly not when speaking of me to those who don’t know me. What would be the point? What, indeed, would be the point of John telling his readers about this nickname?
That’s the thing that rather bothers me, particularly as he does it not once, but three times. He does this the first time he introduces Thomas (Jn 11:16). He does it here. And, he does it again a mere chapter later, when listing those who were out fishing together (Jn 21:2). Look! That’s not even a chapter later. It’s only about 5 verses away. We have not met another Thomas from whom this one needed to be distinguished. It’s not, then, something like that James who was called James the Less, or the Judas who was carefully identified as ‘not Iscariot’. Something, it seems to me, is going on here. Why we don’t know more about it is, I suppose, a matter of distance in time and place. But, it strikes me that this name is given for more reason than a simple fact of birth.
In that regard, I will note the articles on Thomas are pretty much unanimous in counting him a naturally despondent personality, a bit cynical or skeptical. Another way of describing his approach to things might be that he has a strong tendency towards seeing two sides of an issue, if not more. We look at the brief glimpses John gives us into Thomas’ character and see this admixture of faith and doubt. There is devotion, but there is not, shall we say, blind devotion. There is this demand for greater proofs, certainly a degree of unbelief, but there is also, it would seem, a latent hope that those proofs will be given.
We must question, after all, why he is even present with the eleven if he’s already given up on Jesus. Some few of the articles take this view, that after Jesus’ death, he had pretty much walked away from the other ten remaining apostles, and this was why he was not present the first time Jesus appeared to them. Yet, it’s hard to imagine that, if he was so far along in rejecting faith, a mere pestering by the others would bring him back to them. If he still didn’t believe, why was he there? Did he just drop by for a meal? Maybe he was just checking to see when they were planning to head back up to Galilee? Any such speculation, of course, can be resolved by simply noting that this was God’s plan. And, that would be quite certainly true. The question remains, though, as to why Thomas thought he was doing what he was doing. Any further exploration of this, though, I think I shall defer for a more complete consideration of Thomas.
Let us turn our attention, for the next moments, to those other ten (and how that number seems to require adjusting! It was the Twelve, and in spite of Judas, there’s a tendency to want to continue using that label. It’s the eleven, then. Well, except Peter was gone for awhile, and now it would seem that Thomas was as well. So, the ten? The nine? That had to be hard on however many were still gathered together, too!) But, by this point, it seems they are back up to ten, and a very excited ten at that. With good reason! They have seen Him! They have witnessed the risen Lord, and that hope which seemed gone beyond retrieval has been restored sevenfold, a hundredfold! And, the excitement of that restoration is boiling over in them.
What we read, then, in verse 25 comes across as something of an understatement. They were telling him they had seen Him. OK. Well, yes, there’s an exclamation point put in there, at least in most translations, but still… they told him, he said he wasn’t buying it, end of encounter. But, it’s not! The Amplified brings this out, and the imperfect tense of the verb gives them reason. “So the other disciples kept telling him.” I am providing the emphasis, but the Amplified is providing the sense. They kept telling him. They pestered him with this news. They were not going to give up on brother Thomas, however dark his mood, however firmly he rejected their witness.
This is a good place to consider as lesson number one from the passage. What do you do with a brother whose faith appears to be faltering? Or with your own child? And, there’s a most timely question, I dare say! Do we let them slide away, leave it in God’s hands to deal with it? Well, to be sure, if God does not choose to deal with it, then whatever efforts we make are surely futile. “Unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain.” Yes, we understand that! But, I would note that when the Lord builds the house, there are always human hands at work, are there not? The Church cannot stand without Him, but He has decreed a Church built by man, staffed by man, and maintained by man, albeit in His strength.
The disciples seem to have an innate understanding of this. It’s not surprising, really. These eleven men have been together some three years now. They have been through some pretty amazing things together, and in the last week, they have been through some incredibly difficult times. And, they are men in the best sense of the term. They will not abandon each other. I don’t doubt that Peter found himself similarly pursued by the others until he knew himself restored. And in this case, they are not letting Thomas walk away from it all – especially now! – without doing everything they can to draw him back.
Who do we know that seems to have forgotten the marvelous good news of the Gospel? Who have we seen amongst the elect and yet see no more? Are they truly in that number John would later warn of, who were present but not really with us? Or are they like this Thomas, faith still there but shaken to the point of being all but extinguished? Who do we know that needs not just a one-off passing comment about the reality of Christ, but needs to be pestered, annoyed even, by constant refreshers on the subject?
I have to tell you that such thoughts don’t come comfortably to me. I am very mindful of the fact that such pestering can as easily appear to drive one away from Christ as draw him closer. I know how negatively I often reacted to those who were out working the sidewalks for Christ. But, I must also be mindful that these were strangers accosting strangers, and that’s not what’s in view in this passage. No! This is friends pursuing friends. This is a model for fellowship. This is a model for family. You’re one of us, and we’re not letting you go easily. We’re not looking to brainwash you, we’re not some awful sect like that. There will be no kool-aid to drink. But, we’re not letting you forget the Truth that you know, either! You know what you’ve seen! You know it’s True. Yes, for whatever reason your faith is shaken for the moment. Yes, things have looked pretty bleak of late, and you feel the need for greater proofs. But, we’ve had those proofs! We’ve experienced exactly what you’re saying you need to experience. God has provided for us, and He will provide for you. You know the Way, the Truth, the Life! Don’t go throwing it away now. Come! Wait upon the Lord. He will surely answer.
As for Thomas, I cannot fault him for his reaction, really. Yes, it may be the evidence of a misguided skepticism. Yes, we must accept that there was an issue with unbelief here, for Jesus Himself points it out. But, there is also this, I think: Thomas recognized the stakes involved here. He remains mindful that it is matters of eternal significance that are being spoken of. If, indeed, Jesus remains the Way, that is a major deal. If, on the other hand, He was fraud, that, too, is a major deal. The God Who Is has still to be considered whichever way one’s thinking might lean. To continue following a fraud so clearly exposed would seem to bear great risks for the one who does so.
The simple fact is that, while the testimony of other witnesses might suffice for an average court case, this was no average court case. This was the nature of God in the dock, if you will. Either Jesus was God or Jesus was fraud. Either His disciples were the first to accept this great revealed Truth, or they were complete idiots. Issues of such great weight required greater evidence.
Here, if I might be so bold, I would suggest he sets yet another fine example for ourselves. If I might explain. We live in a society in which the majority still, if by slimmer margins, identify themselves as Christians. Yet, experience would indicate that many in that majority have some very peculiar conceptions of what being a Christian means. Many are going to church on a basis not much stronger than that their parents did so. This is something we might tend to associate more with the Catholic church, but it’s hardly restricted to them. There are plenty of Congregationalists, Baptists and Presbyterians who remain so more out of habit or custom than out of conviction. And this doesn’t even begin to touch on those who, while continuing to where the Christian label, have rejected the clear teaching of Scripture!
In many ways, even those of us with a commitment to living for Him, and according to His Word, who lift up the Scriptures as the sole binding matter for our conscience, there remains much that we haven’t really considered. I recall the question that first started me down this road of study. Why a Trinity? Was it really just a hand-me-down from my parents? Or was it a reality? There are other, far less significant matters we must at some point wrestle with as well: Are the spiritual gifts active or not? Are they practiced properly or not? Can there be a proper practice of them or not? Or, we can consider the forms our worship services take. Have we really gone to the Word of God as the guidebook to our service, or are we simply echoing the habit of our forebears – or perhaps rejecting those habits with just as little thought? Does God enter into it, or are we doing what comes natural to us?
The fact of the matter is that these, too, have an eternal significance. Oh, many of the issues of church life are indeed secondary, no cause for dividing the house of God. But, as to our own convictions, it’s supremely important how we are establishing our convictions. Is it truly a conviction built upon careful consideration of what God has revealed to His church? Or is it personal preference? Or thoughtless adherence to tradition? Have we even considered our convictions? Have we considered them while allowing that we just might be wrong about what we thought we knew? Are we granting God permission or opportunity (He doesn’t really need our permission after all) to address our misconceptions and to guide us into all Truth? On what evidence shall we accept correction? On what evidence shall we reject it? Do we, in short, take His Truth so seriously as we ought?
If nothing else, it seems to me Thomas is taking Truth very seriously. If it is Truth, then there is proof. If there is proof, then I ought to avail myself of that evidence before I blithely believe. That way lies blind faith! God calls for something better, though, a faith with firm foundation, a faith that is not blind, but rather an accepting of the evidence, a having been convinced. And there, once more, I jump ahead of myself, so I’ll reel it back in.
John informs us that this concession to Thomas’ needs happened eight days later; Monday of the following week, then. One might wonder why eight days, or why John made note of this. For those inclined towards significance in numbers, eight is generally held to signify a new beginning, seven being the number of completion. Well, certainly for Thomas this became a new beginning. The faith that had been slipping rapidly into unbelief was, as it were, reborn in him and set upon a now unshakable foundation.
If, as has been suggested in various articles, this scene represents the original endpoint of John’s Gospel, we might, I suppose see Thomas’ confession as a new beginning of sorts. What began in John 1:1 was brought to perfect completion on the Cross. Now, with the last of the eleven confirmed in their faith, we might see this moment as the new beginning, the birth of the Church. But, that image seems imperfect to me, a straining to fit events with meaning. Really, what Thomas says is more the perfect conclusion to the book, as others have pointed out, the perfect counterpoint to John’s opening confession that the Word was/is God found in Thomas effectively making the same confession. As to the new beginning that is the birth of the Church, certainly that is better anchored in Acts 2.
Here’s another possibility: Passover is firmly connected with the Feast of Unleavened Bread, so firmly that the two are often spoken of as one. Looking to the ISBE, I note that the combined Passover Week actually lasted eight days (the 15th to the 22nd of Nisan). This festal week, I would note, explains the continued presence of the apostles in Jerusalem. So, it may be that the eight days between Jesus appearing to the ten who were present and His appearing to Thomas reflect little more than the span of that week.
This might, depending on the details of the timing, also serve to explain why Thomas was present. If this represents the last day of the Feast, was that not another holy convocation? I may be misremembering, but it seems to me that was the case. So, where else would he be but back with the others in that room they had arranged to use for the Passover? It doesn’t fully explain why John felt necessary to note the passage of time, but it at least provides a reason for what has been noted.
One of the articles proposed the idea that this delay was something of a repayment to Thomas’ doubting, a punishment or discipline of sorts. I suppose that’s not entirely out of the question, but then I find nothing else in the account that suggests some sort of vindictiveness on God’s part. There is no hint from Jesus that He has been purposely holding off on rallying Thomas’ flagging faith. Yet, we can be assured of this: There is a reason for the delay. As I said, it may simply have been to clear the period in which the Feast of Unleavened Bread was to be observed.
If one holds with the concept that Jesus is the fulfillment of all that whole festal calendar, then we might suppose that He was waiting for the feast to conclude so that He could then conclude the purpose for the feast. If the Last Supper was the conclusion in symbol of the Passover, and His death on the Cross the final fulfillment, can we also find in His efforts that which fulfills the Unleavened Bread? I’m going back to notes taken years ago, based on a book by an author whose other works are certainly suspect, so take it for what it’s worth.
There is, as he lays out, a certain parallelism of the Festal calendar with other aspects of God’s work. There is a parallel to the days of creation. There is a parallel to the spiritual development of man, and, for the most part, there can be found a parallel in the mission of the Christ. The Passover is, of course, the clearest seen amongst these parallels. It is the Light coming into darkness. It is Christ Crucified. It is the New Birth of man. Coming to the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the suggested parallels for Christ and man are Truth revealed in Christ, and doctrine purified for man.
Does this play out in Thomas’ story? Well, certainly for him, the Truth stand revealed and by his confession he has his part in revealing that Truth. “My God, My King!” And yes, I think we might say that at this moment, when the risen Christ stood before His disciples in a form at once clearly physical and clearly supernatural, that their misconceptions as to His purposes finally began to be shed. Oh, there’s still more correction to come. “The timing is not for you to know” (Ac 1:7). But, they have moved from “You are the appointed, anointed One, the Son of God” to “You are God and King!” The conquest against Rome is no longer required to establish this truth for them. It is Truth. The death of Jesus did not change that Truth, nor could it. Indeed, His death, given His subsequent resurrection, served to confirm that Truth. You died and yet You live! You have conquered not just Rome, but death itself! Truly, You are King! Truly You are the Victorious Warrior. We just misunderstood the nature of the war You were fighting.
You are God! I have spent the last three years camping out with God! Did not His words burn in our hearts? Well, duh! Now, admittedly, the others have had the benefit of a week to come to grips with this reality. Thomas is but the last of them to be brought along. But, it is indeed somehow fitting that the team which would establish the Church of Christ on earth for all time was finally in place on this day that concluded the Feast of Unleavened Bread. The barley harvest was marked by this event, the early harvest, if you will. And here, with Thomas, that early harvest of the Apostles is completed and laid away in store. And what rich food for the world is found in that harvest! By these eleven – we can set aside Paul being added to the team for just a moment – the course of religious history was permanently altered. By these eleven, with of course the disclaimer that it is all of God alone and none of themselves, the light is shed abroad first in Israel and then amongst all the nations. Because of this team, I am myself counted amongst the elect, brought into that Truth which Thomas has finally acknowledged. It’s truly amazing to consider!
Why, then, did John include this delayed meeting in his account? As Augustine suggests, it is for our benefit. As we see his doubts replaced with certainty, we are given to understand that our own doubts may likewise be replaced with certainty. I would take it further and say that in this exchange between Jesus and Thomas we learn that indeed, God is not afraid of our questions – at least within limits. He is not offended by the desire for clearer evidence than secondhand reports. Indeed, I might even suppose He is not all that keen on such secondhand faith at all. If our beliefs are founded on nothing beyond the faith of our fathers, or upon the opinions of friends, then they are no beliefs at all. They are little more than clichés we repeat to mark ourselves out as part of the group.
Faith is a considered thing, or it ought to be. Faith, as has been taught from our pulpit of late, and as experience bears out, is a matter of evidence. God is perfectly happy to provide such evidence as we may find needful. He is not offended by a desire to carefully consider what is said of Him. Indeed, even when we have come to faith, the command is to continue in careful consideration of what may be said of Him. Let one or two prophesy and the others judge their words (1Co 14:29).
Thus, we come to Jesus’ command to Thomas. And make no mistake! It is a command. “Be not unbelieving. Be believing!” The Amplified is a bit more expressive here. “Do not be faithless and incredulous, but [stop your unbelief and] believe!” I am also appreciating the rather excessive language that Wuest offers up. “call a halt to your progressive state of unbelief.” You see, this business of being unbelieving was progressive. It was a thing in progress, if not already a customary action. That sense is contained in the present tense applied to the phrase. More immediately, that present tense progress must be joined to the negating modification of mee. With that negation applied, particularly in the imperative mood we have in this passage, the command is a prohibition. Do not! Cease and desist! But, there would be no cause to command cessation were not the prohibited activity already in progress.
“Call a halt to your progressive state of unbelief.” This is the problem with unbelief, particularly as it manifests itself in the believer. And don’t fool yourself into thinking that True Believers ™ are immune to this! Nor is it some evidence of latent Arminianism that I would say so. The fact is that even the most steadfast in faith may be subjected to periods where unbelief creeps in. That is, after all, rather the point of Thomas’ experience. Quite often, that unbelief may take the form of a specific blind spot. I come back to that favorite passage of mine, when Jesus is speaking to Martha of the resurrection of her brother. Yes, yes, Jesus. I know there’s a resurrection. I’ve read up on the theory and I’m fine with that future potential. But, Jesus isn’t talking about some future potential. He’s talking about the immediate present. “Do you believe this?”
There are things God is doing in our own day, in our own circumstance, which we may well be blinding ourselves to. We see the inexplicable happening and, rather than praising God for His intervention, we write it off as something we’ll need to investigate further at some later date. We see the coincidences of current events and, rather than acknowledging the marvel of God’s planning we accept them as simple coincidence. In spite of ourselves, we find ourselves picking up on the skepticism so common in our environment. The opinions of man seep in and, if we are not alert and attuned to the voice of the Holy Spirit, we find those opinions taking a progressive toll on the Truth we know. Unbelief begins to take root even as we continue faithfully in all the expected ritual of church life.
That ritual isn’t going to turn the tide! What is? Well, for one thing, we might return to actively considering the evidence God has been setting before us all along. We could start by considering the miraculous wonder of life’s very existence in this one, apparently unique place in the universe. We could start by considering the miraculous wonder that is the universe, or the universe that lies within our cells. It’s a fine thing that there are those who can, at least within certain bounds, explain the mechanics that define the universe or the cell. Such as these are, it should be noted, ever being confronted with new wonders, and yet, it seems that most of them are incapable of wonder in any fashion that matters. The greatest marvels of existence are reduced to equations to be solved. It’s a sad state, I should think.
Sad, and also essentially futile. What use the equations if one cannot perceive the point? To be able to lay out the best route by which to travel to some distant city is of little value if one is never going to make the trip. To be able to describe the architectural delights of ancient Rome in formulaic fashion cannot replace the experience of actually looking upon those structures. I fear my attempted analogies are probably falling far short of my intent. But, again: The chasing of explanations as to how a thing works is a fine thing. But, it does not in itself arrive at answering the why a thing works, or why it is in the first place.
Grand! We can describe the orbits of planets around distant stars. We can predict the aging process of those distant stars, and what their past arcs of development must have been. We can posit what those earliest of moments in the universe must have been like, even if it requires adding new terms to our vocabulary that few if any actually know. Brane flex? Really? This is, apparently, one of the more recent explanations for that first moment. Something that lies below our level of perception ‘bent’ and poof! The universe popped out. It’s like a rupture or a hernia of some sort, the pin-prick in the tire of existence. OK. But, why was there a tire to be popped? Where did this brane come from and what caused it to flex?
For all that we keep explaining more and more of the effect, and we can set a cause for each effect, there remains the effect that preceded the cause, and when that one’s explained, it will but reveal the next unexplained effect requiring a cause. Eventually, perhaps science will arrive at an acknowledgement of the God Who Is back there as first cause. But, its worshipers seem to be progressing in the opposite direction. Maybe they, too, will one day hear what Thomas heard, “Call a halt to your progressive state of unbelief!”
I rather like that tiny little not that is worked into the command. It’s not the only not in the passage. Thomas had his own to offer. “I will not believe!” His is actually the stronger, combining as it does two negatives. Those two negatives do not cancel, as our English teachers insisted, but rather act in an additive fashion. Ou-mee. I will not-not believe. It’s two words, of which Jesus applies the latter to His command. Be mee unbelieving. Thayer provides a fairly simple means of distinguishing the sense of the two terms. Ou denies the thing. Me denies the very thought of the thing.
With that in mind, we might consider again the command Jesus gives. “Don’t even think about disbelieving. Let there be no such possibility in your mind.” It’s not that we somehow defy insidious unbelief, battling it as if by some inner determination. No! The nature of the evidence should suffice to make the very thought of unbelief an impossibility. I think we do well to recognize this in Jesus’ command, in spite of its middle-voice syntax. He is, after all, the Evidence. And for Thomas, it is very physical evidence. It is all the evidence he could possibly need. With what he is now witnessing, the thought of unbelief has really become impossible, hasn’t it? Belief is the only logical response.
I know that the nature of faith and belief is something I’ve pursued often enough in these studies, yet it deserves a further mention. Faith is not blind, unthinking acceptance. Faith is a matter of assenting to the evidence. Unbelief, on the other hand, considers the matter too incredible to be accepted, ergo not to be believed. The stories spun by a child seeking to avoid punishment generally fall into that category. Though they may think their excuses particularly realistic and sure to deceive, the adult hears a tale too tall even for most mythologies.
Here’s the danger zone: Modern men hear of miracles and arrive at the same point. It’s too incredible to be accepted. It cannot possibly be true. The very thought of it being true is impossible for them. Therefore, wherever miracles are encountered or even described, they must be rejected outright. The possibility of miracle is deleted from the vocabulary. It is a point that can no longer be raised in any debate, else the one raising it will simply be declared a fool and ignored. Such men come to Scripture and must fathom an natural explanation for each miracle described. I mean, it’s acceptable to think that the ancients found this miraculous, but we know better. The Red Sea parted? Well, obviously, it was an earthquake or some such, not God sticking His finger in things.
The Virgin Birth? Right. Doesn’t happen. Clearly, Mary and Joseph were covering their tracks. The Resurrection? Well, if we can’t deny outright that it happened, that Jesus did indeed stand before hundreds of witnesses, then we must explain it away by other means. He fainted, and the Romans mistook it for death. That spear in the side was but a flesh-wound and the blood and water that poured out fooled them. Never mind that Romans were rather expert at this. But, He could not have been dead when they put Him in that tomb. Of this, the modern man is certain. He is wrong. But he is certain. Miracles are in that mee category. Never mind the thing. The thought of the thing has become impossible.
So, what happens when miracles are reported not as historical anomalies but as present day occurrences? Even the average believer discovers he has a problem accepting that as possibility, let alone fact! Isn’t it funny? While we would defend every last miracle in the Bible as Truth, and we would stand up and proclaim that God is Unchanging, yet when the possibility of modern-day miracle is broached, we’ll have none of that. “Call a halt to your progressive state of unbelief!” Considered in this light, I must confess a need to hear that command myself. I have seen sufficient evidence to accept and establish my faith in God. And yet, I know that skepticism that I see in Thomas exists in me. I know that skepticism which prevents so many from admitting even the possibility of God exists in me. It is not so strong as could prevent faith at this point. No! The evidence for God is too strong, too complete. But it could yet lead me to discount what He is doing, to refuse Him the recognition He so richly deserves. And that would be, if not a crime, at the very least a great sorrow.
Well, then, let that unbelief cease in me! May my eyes and my mind be open to what He is doing all around me. And, when the evidence is there, may I be granted the wisdom to assent to that evidence. Faith unto faith, may I be a consistent and constant witness to the glories of my Lord and my God.
[05/02/13] Having considered the words, I would shift to considering the Word. Think about the fact that He is here – again – with the apparent purpose being simply to grant Thomas the proof he needed. By this point, surely Jesus had enough witnesses to His resurrection. There were, after all, ten other disciples who would vouch for the fact of His continued existence, even if the testimony of the women would not count for much in that place. Jesus does not need Thomas’ belief. God does not need his witness. He will continue to be God whether or not even one man believes. Belief doesn’t change Truth, it accedes to the Truth.
But, He came back! This is demonstrative of the degree of care He takes for His sheep. One sheep continued to wander astray. One sheep felt the need for a more irrefutable proof. Jesus was not offended by this. I could almost imagine Him being rather honored by this. One sheep took His person seriously enough to require more proof. But, I suspect that’s pushing the idea too far. Leave it at this: He came back! He came back for that one sheep. The particulars of time and place are intriguing, but ancillary to the point. He came back for Thomas. He cared enough to see to that man’s particular needs. He is not pleased by unbelief, but neither, it seems, is He so very offended by it. It is in our nature, as He well knows. It would appear that, at least for the elect, unbelief is but a matter requiring more attention from Him, and it is attention He is willing to give.
So, we have this example before us of how Jesus makes this special return for one. It’s so common a thought in Christianity as to be trite, but this does seem to support in some degree the idea that ‘if I were the only one saved, yet He would have died for me.’ I honestly doubt the accuracy of that statement. If I were the only one, that would seem to imply that I was the only sinner. Ergo, Justice would seem ill served were I, the sole criminal, allowed to go free. Rather, it is exactly because every last one of us has need of this salvation He has provided that so great a price as He paid was reasonable in His sight.
Yet, having paid the price, a price beyond imagining, it would seem odd, would it not, were He not to ensure He obtained the full benefit of His payment? Having purchased our liberation, who do we suppose He would leave imprisoned? Having established the state of freedman for Thomas, why would He then leave Thomas in slavery to unbelief? No. He comes. He presents Himself, the best evidence of all! And, that evidence is more than enough. Near as can be discerned, Thomas never bothered with that physical probing he had said was a necessary prerequisite for his faith. No. In the end, touch was not so necessary as he thought. Presence superseded the demands of solid bodies. He was here. That was undeniably so. What need had he for further witness?
I am struck, in the moment, by the symmetry between Thomas’ proof and the trial before the Sanhedrin. They heard Jesus claim equality with God and found this sufficient proof to demand His death. Thomas saw the risen Jesus and himself claimed that here lay sufficient proof that He was indeed equal with God. Beautiful!
Now, some seem to find the delay a form of retributive justice. As Thomas wished to wallow in unbelief, so God was willing to allow him that agony of doubt. I suppose that’s not impossible, but I really don’t think this is a matter of vindictiveness on God’s part. When Jesus speaks, it is not so much in rebuke as in encouragement. He is as much as stating the point of His presence. “Be not unbelieving.” Stop it! Let this trend be reversed here and now, for before you stands the Proof. And why was He standing there? He was standing there to achieve what He commanded. It seems pretty clear that He did achieve His purpose without any further action on Thomas’ part. He comes. He speaks. Unbelief is gone. “My Lord and my God!”
Isn’t that the story of faith? Isn’t that so nearly my own story? Raised in the church, yet I had no faith of my own, preferring to wander as far afield as I could. But, God. Then came that day. It was not so very different. There I was, happily ensconced in my physical world, firmly convinced of my rational grip on reality and mildly amused by these overly spiritual nuts around me, when He was there with me, in me, in my head. No, no physical manifestation and no audible voice, but yet, there was that speaking in my thoughts which was clearly not me. And soon the proof lay before me in undeniable fashion. There could be no other response, for God had made His case. I did not see Him. I did not touch Him. I did not need to. The proof of His being was already sufficient for me, like Thomas, to confess, “My Lord and my God!”
It turns out that the “My Lord” part is much the harder aspect to maintain. It’s easy to believe in God. It’s easy to attribute glory and honor to God. It’s a far harder thing to submit to Lord. There is that stubborn self-sufficient streak in me, the need to be in control, the conviction that I’m pretty darn smart and capable, in spite of any number of occasions when the evidence has been to the contrary. So, I continue to find it necessary to pray that I might actually live a life that proclaims Him Lord, not just pay Him lip service. In times like this, recognizing that continued reality of my condition, how reassuring to see the lesson from this passage: God does not smite His chosen, but rather condescends to their need. We do indeed have a High Priest Who has faced every trial and temptation that we will, Who is intimately familiar with our weakness so as to be compassionate towards us as He bears our needs into the throne room of heaven, as He pleads our case before God.
Having noticed that one bit of closure that can be found in Thomas’ acceptance of the testimony before him, it’s worth noting some other bits of closure or symmetry that are given us in this passage. The NET points out how this scene, together with the previous appearance to the ten, is given as a fulfillment of what Jesus had prophesied earlier. “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I AM” (Jn 8:28). It’s quite clear from Thomas’ exclamation that He did know this now. We understand a greater fulfillment of that prophecy, that our own knowledge of Him is also wrapped up in the reality of the Crucifixion and the Resurrection. But, here is the immediate application.
The other thing that is pointed out for us is that according to many, this passage marks the natural close of John’s Gospel, apart from the brief postscript that closes out the chapter. According to this understanding, Chapter 21 is a later addition. We needn’t suppose that it was written by some other hand, but it seems an appendix applied after that summary closing point of John 20:30-31. Given this closing point, it is noted how Thomas’ declaration serves as the perfect counterbalance to John’s opening declaration. At the outset, John had stated, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God. The Word was God” (Jn 1:1). And now we have Thomas, faced with the final evidence, proclaiming just that: “My Lord, my God!” The ‘You are’ is implied, but implied so firmly as to leave no doubt of its presence in thought.
What we saw, we heard, we handled: What was from the beginning, concerning the Word of Life (1Jn 1:1)… it wasn’t just John who knew this familiarity. Thomas, too, and the others, could make that same claim. We cannot. So, we may take comfort in that final blessing of Jesus. “Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.” It might even be reasonable that we should take comfort in that blessing. Yet, I am struck by the fact that Jesus is speaking in what we would take as the past tense. They already did not see. They already believed. With that in mind, it strikes me that He is not prophesying our condition so much as proclaiming the situation that obtained for all those who had died without seeing His day. Is this not speaking of those same heroes of faith that the author of Hebrews commends to our consideration? Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Josiah, choose your hero. All of them to a man lay in the grave, their flesh long since reduced to dust, and their bones as well. These, all of them, had passed on to Sheol without seeing their hopes fulfilled. Yet, they had died with faith unshaken. They had died with the firm conviction that this Savior would come, and here He is. Here He is, and what does He say? “You are blessed! You who did not see, and yet believed firm to the end are blessed!” Yes! And may we be so blessed when our time arrives! May we, too, persevere to the end, knowing the certain hope within us. May we arrive at His courts having been given the honor of a ‘well done, good and faithful servant!’
Meeting the People - Thomas (05/03/13-05/05/13)
